I think it's somewhere on Sherdog.
Google Cro Cop vs Sakubara.
If I recall it was at the beginning of 1st round, Sakubara shot in, and got kicked to the head hard. Instant KO. Fractured the orbital bone.

It was like watching Chuck Lidell's fists duct taped to someone's feet.

I know what they meant when they founded the site because I was there when they first discussed it. I believe I need to be training if I am going to post 0n this site, and I only post here if there is a specific focused reason, like updating my son's comp footage. I'm not training, and so i have nothing to post about.

The site was about doing and promoting real martial arts and combat sports, and exposing BS, not do-nothing posing. It was, and it is, and all this talk won't change that.

If Phrost were still doing Douchebag of the Month, I think Matt Phillips would have just about wrapped it up. Here's a guy who attacks another site member repeatedly, implying that he doesn't train and that therefore he shouldn't post, without ever asking him whether he trains. He then (still not knowing whether that member trains) attacks that member's status as a forum leader, adding that he does not know what forum that person is a forum leader of, based on the implication that the member does not train. He also mocks the member for posting mostly about televised MMA events. Well, Matt, perhaps you might check whether that member is Moderator of the Sub-forum for betting varrots on televised MMA events.

Matt's deepest passion seems to be that no one who doesn't actively train should ever post here (except for his own posting about his son's competition), but he has posted 400 times in the last 3 1/2 weeks in about a dozen different threads unrelated to his son. When people have pointed this out, his response is that he knows all about the idea of self-refutation, as though that absolves him of blame here. But that isn't the issue.

First, what Matt is doing isn't an instance of self-refutation. Logical self-refutation is a feature of claims or theories that cannot be true given what they say about the nature of truth or meaning. Epistemic self-refutation is a feature of claims or theories that cannot be known or justifiably believed given what they say about the nature of knowledge, justification, or truth. These are theoretical failings. What Matt does is *hypocritical,* irrational, and self-serving, and to an extent that is so pure and so rare that it will serve me as a perfect example (with identifying details omitted of course) in ethics classes for years to come.

Matt demands that everyone adhere to a standard that he regards himself as entirely exempt from, not only (as he dishonestly claims) so that he can continue to argue for others' having to follow it but also so that he may follow any whim he might have to comment on any topic on the forum.

There is another, closely analogous situation with his using his relationship with site admins to allow him to put a "pun" phony style name into his style blank, not in English (or even in our alphabet), in a way that hides his non-training, while attacking others if he suspects that their style field is not perfectly current. However, the issues are so similar that it isn't worth repeating the discussion of his self-indulgent hypocrisy. (Note that I am not criticizing the permission for the fake style name -- I don't care; my point is that if Matt is going to use it, then he is in no moral position to be picky about anyone else's.)

It is clear from his actions that Matt really thinks that it is fine for him to post as much as he wants about whatever he wants. And that is fine. As long as he gets over the idea that he has some moral high ground in virtue of which he can attack others and tell them whether they should be allowed to post, to Moderate, or whatever. Obviously, being a multiply hypocritical, self-indulgent, would-be informer on an internet forum isn't a big crime in the grand scheme of things. A little self-examination (after he gets over his "who is this upstart to question me, the grand poobah who has the phone numbers of ..., the father of ...," tizzy), some Pepto-Bismol, a well-placed apology or two, and a full recovery from douchebaggery should be possible.

Last edited by ChuckWepner; 12/04/2012 2:42pm at .
Reason: Added s to a word

If Phrost were still doing Douchebag of the Month, I think Matt Phillips would have just about wrapped it up. Here's a guy who attacks another site member repeatedly,
implying that he doesn't train and that therefore he shouldn't post, without ever asking him whether he trains.

Bullshit. Never happened. Quote me or STFU.

He then (still not knowing whether that member trains) attacks that member's status as a forum leader, adding that he does not know what forum that person is a forum leader of, based on the implication that the member does not train.

I did not say he shouldn't be a forum leader. Quote me or STFU.

He also mocks the member for posting mostly about televised MMA events. Well, Matt, perhaps you might check whether that member is Moderator of the Sub-forum for betting varrots on televised MMA events.

Far from mocking him, I made it clear that I think he is well qualified. Either you can't read or you're paranoid. Read what I wrote and then STFU.

Matt's deepest passion seems to be that no one who doesn't actively train should ever post here (except for his own posting about his son's competition), but he has posted 400 times in the last 3 1/2 weeks in about a dozen different threads unrelated to his son.

As I said, I'm here for this thread. Occasionally I look around and see something worth making a drive-by post about, and comment. I am not a regular poster here, and will not be again unless I am back to training.

When people have pointed this out, his response is that he knows all about the idea of self-refutation, as though that absolves him of blame here. But that isn't the issue.

First, what Matt is doing isn't an instance of self-refutation. Logical self-refutation is a feature of claims or theories that cannot be true given what they say about the nature of truth or meaning.

I have studied Formal Logic up to Compactness, Axiomatic Set Theory, Computability Theory, as well as Epistemology and Philosophy of Language at the graduate level. I have no problem reading Turing or Godel in the (English) original, and did so for my senior thesis in college. I know what a fucking self-refuting proposition is. Do you? Unlike yourself, I am well aware that no statement containing more than sixteen words is ever true.

Epistemic self-refutation is a feature of claims or theories that cannot be known or justifiably believed given what they say about the nature of knowledge, justification, or truth. These are theoretical failings. What Matt does is *hypocritical,* irrational, and self-serving, and to an extent that is so pure and so rare that it will serve me as a perfect example (with identifying details omitted of course) in ethics classes for years to come.

If you can not see the humor in telling someone who is not training that they can not suggest (in a post) that non-training people should cease posting, then you need to brush up on your Monty Python. I'm not suggesting people be banned from posting, I'm suggesting that people get back to training before they waste their lives posting on a fucking forum.

Matt demands that everyone adhere to a standard that he regards himself as entirely exempt from, not only (as he dishonestly claims) so that he can continue to argue for others' having to follow it but also so that he may follow any whim he might have to comment on any topic on the forum.

There is another, closely analogous situation with his using his relationship with site admins to allow him to put a "pun" phony style name into his style blank, not in English (or even in our alphabet), in a way that hides his non-training,

Hides? It says "no jiu-jitsu" you fucking moron, and I trained BJJ last night. Do you think anyone thinks that is the name of a style? Do you see any capital letters? This is priceless... what else you got?

while attacking others if he suspects that their style field is not perfectly current. However, the issues are so similar that it isn't worth repeating the discussion of his self-indulgent hypocrisy. (Note that I am not criticizing the permission for the fake style name -- I don't care; my point is that if Matt is going to use it, then he is in no moral position to be picky about anyone else's.)

I never got permission from anyone to write "no jiu-jitsu" in Portuguese. Why should I?

LOL at you implying I tried to hide the fact that I'm out of training, when you just got done making another bullshit argument above predicated on my own publicly admitted lack of training. You're fucking flailing, bro.

It is clear from his actions that Matt really thinks that it is fine for him to post as much as he wants about whatever he wants. And that is fine. As long as he gets over the idea that he has some moral high ground in virtue of which he can attack others and tell them whether they should be allowed to post, to Moderate, or whatever. Obviously, being a multiply hypocritical, self-indulgent, would-be informer on an internet forum isn't a big crime in the grand scheme of things. A little self-examination (after he gets over his "who is this upstart to question me, the grand poobah who has the phone numbers of ..., the father of ...," tizzy), some Pepto-Bismol, a well-placed apology or two, and a full recovery from douchebaggery should be possible.

Dude, this whole rant is a load of crap. I have popped back in over the last 12 months but I am not a regular poster anymore. I think *I* should be training more than posting; I think rednamers should be practicing what the site stands for; I think the site's founders agree with that, and I showed that they do; I think people working in MABS should have good general knowledge of the martial arts world. I do not decide who gets to post on this site, nor do I want to.

Last edited by Matt Phillips; 12/04/2012 3:45pm at .

Now darkness comes; you don't know if the whales are coming. - Royce Gracie